The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Are the majority of the police sanctioned thugs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 97368
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Are the actions of the police use of excessive force unwarranted and constitute an act of oppression against not just those besieged but against everybody?

Are the militarized police an occupying force who consider any challenges to their legitimacy a potential domestic terrorist who consider dissent disloyalty?


I accept this debate. My opponent will have to prove that the MAJORITY of police officers are "sanctioned thugs."
Since no definitions were proposed, I will provide definitions of the terms used by my opponent.

Sanction;;To give official approval or permission for (an action)

Thug:: A brutal ruffian or assassin.

Unless my opponent has a problem with these definitions, that is what he/she has to prove what the majority of police officers are.
Many thanks to my opponent for this debate, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


I accept the sanction definition but not the thug meaning you proposed:
Let me rephrase that by what I meant by the word 'thug' in uniform is this; Police officers who routinely abuse the power they believe is given to them with their badges. And perhaps they are correct in this thinking because it is legal for a police to lie while questioning a person of interest, but for a citizen to give false information is unlawful.

Given that definition then yes, the majority do so routinely.
1) The police, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect.

2) Civil confiscation, where the money is charged with a crime but not the person. Policing for profit is what I call brigandage, highway robbery by a state sanctioned armed gang of blue brigands.

3) Enhanced tax revenue by false ticketing.
A) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that for every 10 mph increase in the speed limit, there is 1 mph leeway. I.E.@ 15mph, 17mph is still legal, at 65mph, 72 is still legal. Yet a cop would say to you, "Even if you go 1mph over the speed limit you are illegal" (an intentional lie or ignorance?)
B) Jaywalking ticketing on a pedestrian mall. MUTCD states that a pedestrian must use the light controlled intersection if in between 2 light controlled intersection.Otherwise as long as do not step out in front of a vehicle causing an accident, able to cross anywhere along street such as between a stop sign intersection and a light controlled intersection.

Unable to do violence and assassins as in standard definition of a thug for the majority of the police. I hope it isn't over 50% but the poor excuse of "just a few bad apples" as if the rest of the police force is pristine is false because of the 'thin blue line'. Although many do not partake directly in violence, all know it happens routinely and shut their trap about it unless risk being ostracized. Therefore in a sense, the majority are complicit in brutalization and dehumanization of civilians as standard operation procedure.


Many thanks to my opponent for resolving the definition issue. Now, my opponent has to prove that the Police are given OFFICIAL approval to abuse the power given to them by "their badges." "Thug" has no part of this debate.

First of all, my opponent's claim;"The police, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect."
My opponent hasn't provided any evidence to back up this claim. Also, he hasn't been able to even cite the legal code in which OFFICIAL approval of lying, trickery, etc. is given to officers in order to gain information.

My rebuttal extends to all of my opponent's claims.

There are approx. 900,000 police officers in the U.S today. My opponent has claimed that more than 450,000 partake in "brutalization and dehumanization" of American citizens. Approx. 6000 cases of police misconduct were reported by NPMSRP, a non-partisan organization. Now, it is clear that my opponent will rebut this by saying that that is all that is being reported, and that there is more out there. However, unless he can prove this, I cannot accept it as fact.(for this debate)

I would finally like to point out a logical flaw made by my opponent:
"The police, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect"
My opponent has either implied that the police CAN do this legally, (as what can be assumed by the statement) or this ISN'T allowed, and cops are doing it anyway. If the latter, there isn't evidence anywhere to back that up.

Debate Round No. 2


You narrowed your definition to the point of being nonsensical;

1) If "Police are given OFFICIAL approval to abuse" - then it's is not abuse.

2) "cite the legal code in which OFFICIAL approval of lying, trickery, etc. is given to officers in order to gain information."

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics. "The police, for example, may not use torture techniques, threats, drugging, or inhumane treatment during an interrogation. The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect." -

3)You mis-stated or twisted my words with your statement,: My opponent has claimed that more than 450,000 partake in "brutalization and dehumanization" of American citizens." I did NOT claim that. I said that 100% are complicit by allowing "a few bad apples" to get away with abuse by saying nothing.

complicit 1. involved with others in reprehensible or illegal activity

I would like to change the word from complicit to 'accessory'.

Varying laws in different jurisdictions regarding ethical responsibility and a legal duty to act. Although civilians are under no legal obligation to report a crime, whether they knew about it in advance, witnessed its commission, many exceptions exist.

"A few states, for example, require witnesses at the scene of a violent crime to make reports to law enforcement when they can safely do so. Many states require all persons to report suspected child abuse. Further, depending on your job, you may, as an employee, have an obligation to report certain work-related suspicious activity to a government agency or the police. These duties are commonly called "mandatory reporting requirements." -

Fear of fellow officers backlash for reporting: Privately-operated, anonymous toll-free hotlines and website portals are available to "tipsters" where you may safely report a crime without revealing your identity. But can still track phone number, voice printing, etc, leading to retaliation of whistleblowers.

This is why I say 100% (change word from 'complicit' to 'accessory'.)
"While merely failing to report a crime is one thing, helping to conceal a crime is another. A person can generally be charged with accessory after the fact, or aiding and abetting, if he or she wasn't actually present during the commission of a crime, but took actions to conceal the crime or help the perpetrators avoid capture." -

Police entrapment or sting operation? What undercover police do that is unlawful for a civilian to do;
Aiding and Abetting a Crime
1- Know the perpetrator"s illegal plan,
2 - Intentionally encourage and/or facilitate that plan, and
3 - Aid, promote, or instigate in the crime"s commission.

How do you prove entrapment?
First, you have to prove the government induced or persuaded you to commit the crime, and it was crime you normally wouldn't have committed. Then, it's up to the prosecution to prove you were predisposed to committing the crime; that under normal circumstances, any law-abiding person would not have committed the crime. How far an undercover agent can go when setting up a criminal incident. When is "too far," too far?

The best cases for an entrapment defense involve extremely persistent and manipulative efforts by law enforcement to get an otherwise law-abiding individual to commit a crime.

Now go back to the top of this answer that it is legal for cops to use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods and it's a repeating downward spiral.

"The blue wall of silence,[1] also blue code[2] and blue shield,[3] are terms used in the United States to denote the unwritten rule that purportedly exists among police officers not to report on a colleague's errors, misconducts, or crimes, including police brutality. If questioned about an incident of alleged misconduct involving another officer (e.g. during the course of an official inquiry), while following the code, the officer being questioned would claim ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing or claim to have not seen anything." -

Sanctioned - yes, unofficially via the thin blue line
thugs - no - but all are guilty in varying degrees in cover ups for fear of being ostracized in retaliation. There are no virgins here.

I can give specific examples if you like of blue on blue retaliation of whistleblowers.

Here's my personal experience, and oh yeah I did file a report with IA and he was found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer. Guess what happened to me. Oh yeah, zero protection from HPD afterwards. It was open season for me with bad consequences for me on the street. Had to move back to the mainland.


First of all, many thanks to my opponent for this debate. I will first rebut my opponent's points, then I will get to the crux of this debate.

I would like to note, that constantly changing definitions makes this debate so hard to keep up with, but I ask the voters to please bear with us as this debate comes to a conclusion.

"1) If "Police are given OFFICIAL approval to abuse" - then it's is not abuse."
My opponent has cited that this ISN'T abuse, however, agreed to the term that Sanction means OFFICIAL approval to do something. My opponent has clearly ceded this point.

In his, second rebuttal, I am glad that my opponent has cited a source. However, while my opponent has quite effectively proven that a police officer can use coercive tactics to get a confession, he also makes the mistake of also pointing out that the police CANNOT use "inhumane treatment," which is the point of this debate.

I am confused by my opponent's third rebuttal. First, he denies saying that 450000 (50%) of police are "thugs," but then goes on to say that "100%' are complicit. My opponent has either ceded this debate, or is clearly making a VERY wrong statement about police officers in America.

Onto my opponent's point about mandatory reporting. H ehas not proven anything objectively wring with this point. There is nothing that is seen as "dehumanization" there.

While my opponent went on to say that Tipsters can lead to retaliation by law enforcement, that cannot be taken seriously, since there was no evidence, and is merely skeptical.

Then, my opponent continues by listing rights that officers have that civilians don't. This debate is not about whether cops have more rights than civilians. It is about whether the cops ( in majority) ABUSE those rights. All of these items only go to help my argument.

The blue line of silence argument contains no clear evidence as to how that entails the majority of officers being part of a "thug" culture, besides a wikipedia page. There was no solid proof that every officer is involved in these sort of things.

Finally, my opponent goes to say that the police are sanctioned to do what they do, however they aren't thugs. In my opinion, this is a concession.

I will not address personal experience, since they cannot be proved. I am however, sorry that he has been wronged by an officer, and under no circumstance should that happen.

I now want to simply ask this, to close my argument; Is it possible, that every single police officer in the U.S is "guilty" of aiding and abetting a crime that is the dehumanization of civilians using power that isn't given to them? I hope that the readers vote NO.

Thanks again for this debate!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ptosis 2 years ago
No, this is a Dakota Pipeline thing
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
I guess this is a BLM thing, right?
Posted by ptosis 2 years ago
To say the systematic use of violence in a population in order to bring about a political objective is legal, is not to say it is wise or moral.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.